Association Between Intoxication and Urgent Neurosurgical Procedures in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Results From the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The probability of undergoing surgery after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) varies significantly across studies and centers. However, causes of this variability are poorly understood. We hypothesized that intoxication may impact the probability of receiving an urgent neurosurgical procedure among patients with severe TBI.Methods:We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a Level I or II trauma center in the United States or Canada with an isolated severe TBI.<sup>2012-2016</sup> Data were derived from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program dataset. An urgent neurosurgical procedure was defined as a procedure that occurred within 24 hrs of admission. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to examine the independent effect of intoxication on a patient’s likelihood of undergoing an urgent procedure, as well as the timing of the procedure.Results:Of 33,646 patients with an isolated severe TBI, 11,313 (33.6%) were intoxicated. An urgent neurosurgical procedure was performed in 8,255 (24.5%) cases. Overall, there was no difference in the probability of undergoing an urgent procedure between patients who were and were not intoxicated (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94–1.06). While intoxication status had no impact on the probability of surgery among patients with the most severe TBI (head AIS 5: OR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98–1.15]), intoxicated patients on the lower spectrum of injury had lower odds of undergoing an urgent procedure (AIS 3: OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.66–0.97]). Among patients who underwent an urgent procedure, intoxication had no impact on timing.Conclusion:Intoxication status was not associated with differences in the probability of undergoing an urgent neurosurgical procedure among all patients with a severe TBI. However, in patients with less severe TBI, intoxication status was associated with decreased likelihood of receiving an urgent intervention. This finding underscores the challenge in the management of intoxicated patients with TBI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".